Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

Select the icon that says "insert image" when you mouse over it when you write a reply and copy the link between the or on imgur simply copy the link on the right that say something like "best for forum, etc"

will do.

Note on that trend line, the descending temperature is in the presence of a low sunspot trend, and is without any of the volcanic activity that can cause temporary cooling.

I sure hope that line does not keep going down...

[Wilikon]

Arctic polar bears may be adjusting their eating habits as their sea ice habitat melts and the furry white predators stand to lose the floating platform they depend on to hunt seals, their primary food. According to researchers, however, the bears are displaying flexible eating habits as their world changes around them.

Indeed, scientific studies indicate polar bear populations are falling as the sea ice disappears earlier each spring and forms later in the fall. But a series of papers based on analysis of polar bear poop released over the past several months indicate that at least some of the bears are finding food to eat when they come ashore, ranging from bird eggs and caribou to grass seeds and berries.

“What our results suggest is that polar bears have flexible foraging strategies,” Linda Gormezano, a biologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a co-author of several of the papers, told NBC News…

… In addition to berries, birds and eggs, Andrew Derocher, a University of Alberta polar bear biologist who was not involved with the recent studies, said people have seen a polar bear drink hydraulic fluid as it was drained out of a forklift, chomp the seats of snow machines, and eat lead acid batteries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-ice-melts-polar-bears-switch-diets-survive-studies-say-2D11988491

[Spendulus]

....people have seen a polar bear drink hydraulic fluid as it was drained out of a forklift, chomp the seats of snow machines, and eat lead acid batteries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-ice-melts-polar-bears-switch-diets-survive-studies-say-2D11988491

Maybe we should send the new supposed green hydrogen fueled cars up there for the polar bears to test for us.

Let's see them chomp into that composite high pressure hydrogen tank, that'd make a nice boom, send them flying and then....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA

[Wilikon]

....people have seen a polar bear drink hydraulic fluid as it was drained out of a forklift, chomp the seats of snow machines, and eat lead acid batteries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-ice-melts-polar-bears-switch-diets-survive-studies-say-2D11988491

Maybe we should send the new supposed green hydrogen fueled cars up there for the polar bears to test for us.

Let's see them chomp into that composite high pressure hydrogen tank, that'd make a nice boom, send them flying and then....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA

But then the Green Movement would be sued by PETA and... Hold on! What a genius idea

[Spendulus]

....

But then the Green Movement would be sued by PETA and... Hold on! What a genius idea

Here's an interesting article, which focuses on ocean acidification and it's effects.  Smaller oysters, that's the subject of the study.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem

I have very mixed feelings about extrapolations from this bit of scientific work.  For example, I think that we'll have huge, far superior oysters in some decades because the market really wants them and will pay highly for them.  Therefore, people will figure a way to grow them.

But the article says that higher co2 partial pressure is bad for oysters.

So there you have it....if we affect the ocean pp co2, species distribution is altered, or at least what thrives is altered.  Is that bad?

Is there some natural, pristine standard which is "best?"  ... Against which human influence should be viewed as evil, bad, corrupting?

[Wilikon]

....

But then the Green Movement would be sued by PETA and... Hold on! What a genius idea

Here's an interesting article, which focuses on ocean acidification and it's effects.  Smaller oysters, that's the subject of the study.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem

I have very mixed feelings about extrapolations from this bit of scientific work.  For example, I think that we'll have huge, far superior oysters in some decades because the market really wants them and will pay highly for them.  Therefore, people will figure a way to grow them.

But the article says that higher co2 partial pressure is bad for oysters.

So there you have it....if we affect the ocean pp co2, species distribution is altered, or at least what thrives is altered.  Is that bad?

Is there some natural, pristine standard which is "best?"  ... Against which human influence should be viewed as evil, bad, corrupting?

But what is worse and when? When humans created species like domestic dogs, domestic cats and cows? When humans started domesticated plants like maize?
Everything we touch have consequences one way or another. So Far it seems Nature created us to re engineer it, to be creative with it. So it is sad for the oyster but who cares? dude got 300 million years to adapt. It is like feeling sad for a panda, the bourgeois of the animal kingdom with its very select and exclusive food habit.

Evolution: ... Or else!

[Spendulus]

....

But then the Green Movement would be sued by PETA and... Hold on! What a genius idea

Here's an interesting article, which focuses on ocean acidification and it's effects.  Smaller oysters, that's the subject of the study.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem

I have very mixed feelings about extrapolations from this bit of scientific work.  For example, I think that we'll have huge, far superior oysters in some decades because the market really wants them and will pay highly for them.  Therefore, people will figure a way to grow them.

But the article says that higher co2 partial pressure is bad for oysters.

So there you have it....if we affect the ocean pp co2, species distribution is altered, or at least what thrives is altered.  Is that bad?

Is there some natural, pristine standard which is "best?"  ... Against which human influence should be viewed as evil, bad, corrupting?

But what is worse and when? When humans created species like domestic dogs, domestic cats and cows? When humans started domesticated plants like maize?
Everything we touch have consequences one way or another. So Far it seems Nature created us to re engineer it, to be creative with it. So it is sad for the oyster but who cares? dude got 300 million years to adapt. It is like feeling sad for a panda, the bourgeois of the animal kingdom with its very select and exclusive food habit.

Evolution: ... Or else!

But look what I said.  The oyster had 300 million years to get where it is.

But we'll improve it in 50.  Or less.

Even so, that's neither qualitative or quantitative, but simply change.

Because we'll change it to simply taste better, and to grow faster.

It's much more similar to adaptation to our use, than evolution.

[Wilikon]

....

But then the Green Movement would be sued by PETA and... Hold on! What a genius idea

Here's an interesting article, which focuses on ocean acidification and it's effects.  Smaller oysters, that's the subject of the study.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem

I have very mixed feelings about extrapolations from this bit of scientific work.  For example, I think that we'll have huge, far superior oysters in some decades because the market really wants them and will pay highly for them.  Therefore, people will figure a way to grow them.

But the article says that higher co2 partial pressure is bad for oysters.

So there you have it....if we affect the ocean pp co2, species distribution is altered, or at least what thrives is altered.  Is that bad?

Is there some natural, pristine standard which is "best?"  ... Against which human influence should be viewed as evil, bad, corrupting?

But what is worse and when? When humans created species like domestic dogs, domestic cats and cows? When humans started domesticated plants like maize?
Everything we touch have consequences one way or another. So Far it seems Nature created us to re engineer it, to be creative with it. So it is sad for the oyster but who cares? dude got 300 million years to adapt. It is like feeling sad for a panda, the bourgeois of the animal kingdom with its very select and exclusive food habit.

Evolution: ... Or else!

But look what I said.  The oyster had 300 million years to get where it is.

But we'll improve it in 50.  Or less.

Even so, that's neither qualitative or quantitative, but simply change.

Because we'll change it to simply taste better, and to grow faster.

It's much more similar to adaptation to our use, than evolution.

Yes. We will change the oyster to our need, just like when did it before with plants and animals. The difference is the concept of being a good or a bad human for doing so is relatively new.

[Spendulus]

....
Yes. We will change the oyster to our need, just like when did it before with plants and animals. The difference is the concept of being a good or a bad human for doing so is relatively new.

Unless you buy into the alarmist extremist argument that the "oceans will die", which in debate reduces to a proposition of the "irrefutable hypothesis" variety, namely...

"But prove the oceans won't die?" (as a result of man's co2, usually)

[Wilikon]

Climate scientist’s defamation suit allowed to go forward

In July of 2012, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute compared one of the researchers at Penn State University to one of its football coaches. The comparison was not flattering, given the referenced coach had just been convicted of sexually abusing minors. That comparison was then echoed favorably by a blogger and columnist at the National Review. The scientist in question, climatologist Mike Mann, sued them all for defamation.

The case has struggled through the courts ever since. The defendants tried to get it dismissed under the District of Columbia's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, which attempts to keep people from being silenced by frivolous lawsuits. The judge hearing the case denied the attempt and then promptly retired; Mann next amended his complaint, leading an appeals court to send the whole thing back to a new trial judge.

Now the new judge has denied the SLAPP attempt yet again. In a decision released late last week (and hosted by defendant Mark Steyn), the judge recognizes that the comparison to a child molester is part of the "opinions and rhetorical hyperbole" that are protected speech when used against public figures like Mann. However, the accompanying accusations of fraud are not exempt:


Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.


Determining whether the blog pieces are false and were made with malice can be determined at trial, which, barring further appeals, may ultimately happen. But there may be further delays, as the lawyer that had been representing Steyn and the National Review has withdrawn from the case, leaving Steyn representing himself. Hopefully, he knows more about the law than he does about Mann's research. In another recent blog post about the case, Steyn indicated that he doesn't realize that Mann works on reconstructions of past climates, rather than the models that are used to project future climates.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/climate-scientists-defamation-suit-allowed-to-go-forward/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I predict no scientists in the future will be called a fraud because they will not exist. Ever. According the to law of "lawsuit pressure"

[Wilikon]

...‘control the proliferation of unusual weather’


Gore: 'Depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women and making fertility management ubiquitously available. so women can chose how many children and the spacing of children -- is crucial to the future shape of human civilization. Africa is projected to have more people than China and India by mid-century More than China and India combined by end of the century. and this is one of the causal factors that must be addressed' - (Gore also links Typhoon Haiyan and Sandy to man-made global warming)

@ 15 min.
http://www.weforum.org/sessions/summary/changing-climate-growth-and-development

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Gore is saying to save the planet we (people like him, from countries like his country) need less people like Africans by controlling their birthrate. His agenda is pretty clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Czech Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: 'It is immoral for Al Gore to organize 'fertility management' for other nations':

'It is impossible not to think that there's some racism and stunning hypocrisy if a jerk (Gore) who has produced four children is 'working' on the reduction of the number of newborn babies in a completely different nation.'

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/01/it-is-immoral-for-al-gore-to-organize.html

[Wilikon]

Another insane cold wave — not the infamous “polar vortex ” but its evil twin — is bringing sub-zero and single-digit temperatures to much of the nation. And global warming may be even more extreme, and potentially more catastrophic, than climate scientists had feared.

This is, of course, no contradiction. The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space. They forget that it’s winter, and apparentlythey don’t quite grasp that even when it’s cold in one part of the world, it can be hot in another.

Indeed, while the United States is having an unusually frigid month, Australia has been sweltering through record-breaking heat. Play had to be interrupted at the Australian Open tennis tournament when temperatures in Melbourne reached 109 degrees; one player said her plastic water bottle began to melt. The extreme heat came as officials reported that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since record-keeping began more than a century ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/xx03ZxUI4R4

----------------------------------
If we should trust him on the NSA's program we also should trust him about global warming......... 100%!

[Spendulus]

Another insane cold wave — not the infamous “polar vortex ” but its evil twin — is bringing sub-zero and single-digit temperatures to much of the nation. And global warming may be even more extreme, and potentially more catastrophic, than climate scientists had feared.

This is, of course, no contradiction. The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space. They forget that it’s winter, and apparentlythey don’t quite grasp that even when it’s cold in one part of the world, it can be hot in another.

Indeed, while the United States is having an unusually frigid month, Australia has been sweltering through record-breaking heat. Play had to be interrupted at the Australian Open tennis tournament when temperatures in Melbourne reached 109 degrees; one player said her plastic water bottle began to melt. The extreme heat came as officials reported that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since record-keeping began more than a century ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

This kind of twisty double talk is the problem not the solution.

While the article fabricates out of whole cloth the following straw man...

"The rallying cry of the denialists..."

It ignores the 100x citable media tripe which attributes the latest extreme weather phenomena to AGW.

Further, the underlying theory you espoused earlier (that higher temps cause more snow, more extreme weather) is actually completely false.

Higher latent heat energy will do this.  "Higher air temperatures" is not a plausible measure from which these supposed effects can be attributed.  Neither is there a direct or meaningful relation between latent heat energy and air temperatures.

[Wilikon]

Another insane cold wave — not the infamous “polar vortex ” but its evil twin — is bringing sub-zero and single-digit temperatures to much of the nation. And global warming may be even more extreme, and potentially more catastrophic, than climate scientists had feared.

This is, of course, no contradiction. The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space. They forget that it’s winter, and apparentlythey don’t quite grasp that even when it’s cold in one part of the world, it can be hot in another.

Indeed, while the United States is having an unusually frigid month, Australia has been sweltering through record-breaking heat. Play had to be interrupted at the Australian Open tennis tournament when temperatures in Melbourne reached 109 degrees; one player said her plastic water bottle began to melt. The extreme heat came as officials reported that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since record-keeping began more than a century ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

This kind of twisty double talk is the problem not the solution.

While the article fabricates out of whole cloth the following straw man...

"The rallying cry of the denialists..."

It ignores the 100x citable media tripe which attributes the latest extreme weather phenomena to AGW.

Further, the underlying theory you espoused earlier (that higher temps cause more snow, more extreme weather) is actually completely false.

Higher latent heat energy will do this.  "Higher air temperatures" is not a plausible measure from which these supposed effects can be attributed.  Neither is there a direct or meaningful relation between latent heat energy and air temperatures.

The problem is, you are fighting back with facts. That will never fly with hockey stick players...

[Spendulus]

Another insane cold wave — not the infamous “polar vortex ” but its evil twin — is bringing sub-zero and single-digit temperatures to much of the nation. And global warming may be even more extreme, and potentially more catastrophic, than climate scientists had feared.

This is, of course, no contradiction. The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space. They forget that it’s winter, and apparentlythey don’t quite grasp that even when it’s cold in one part of the world, it can be hot in another.

Indeed, while the United States is having an unusually frigid month, Australia has been sweltering through record-breaking heat. Play had to be interrupted at the Australian Open tennis tournament when temperatures in Melbourne reached 109 degrees; one player said her plastic water bottle began to melt. The extreme heat came as officials reported that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since record-keeping began more than a century ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

This kind of twisty double talk is the problem not the solution.

While the article fabricates out of whole cloth the following straw man...

"The rallying cry of the denialists..."

It ignores the 100x citable media tripe which attributes the latest extreme weather phenomena to AGW.

Further, the underlying theory you espoused earlier (that higher temps cause more snow, more extreme weather) is actually completely false.

Higher latent heat energy will do this.  "Higher air temperatures" is not a plausible measure from which these supposed effects can be attributed.  Neither is there a direct or meaningful relation between latent heat energy and air temperatures.

The problem is, you are fighting back with facts. That will never fly with hockey stick players...

Actually you have a good point.  But I could easily explain to sixth graders the difference between temperature and latent heat, and they could grasp the implications.  And that's where my primary objection to much of the current batch of "climate science" lies.  These clowns are teaching bad methods of thinking, and bad/false science, for whatever their purposes may be.

That's wrong.  A lot of them actually believe wrong stuff.  Demonstrably wrong ideas of physics.  There's just about no excuse for this.  Now, note that has no relation to some question such as "is there or is there not <<insert your choice of assertion:  seas rising, more hurricanes, AGW, polar bears crying, whatever>>

Bad and illogical thinking and assertions should always be pointed out, and it is never acceptable to shout such a thing down, or intimidate people who do such a thing, or ban them from a forum for doing such a thing.

Against this the clowns argue that well, a lot of this stuff is really very complicated, so they simplify their explanations and their arguments purposefully.   And then they call anyone who objects to the simplified explanation a denier.  My experience, a lot of people have never got past the wrong ideas, and actually believe them because in their subculture those were taught as true.

[Wilikon]

(CNSNews.com) – Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asked scientists at a climate change conference on Thursday in Arlington, Va., to help advance President Barack Obama’s agenda on climate change.

“Scientists, you folks help us understand our world,” McCarthy said at the 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment: Building Climate Solutions, sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). “You help EPA to meet our mission of public health protection and environmental protection.

“I need you now more than ever to speak the truth,” McCarthy said. “I need you to stand up together with us and explain what the science is telling you.

“To tell people that science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA, which is to look at climate change as something where we can innovate and we can move forward to grow the economy, to grow jobs, to understand how we’re producing sustainable, livable communities,” McCarthy said.

Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change.

Obama referenced climate change in his State of the Union address while talking about "cleaner energy."

"The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way," Obama said. "But the debate is settled.  Climate change is a fact.

"And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did," Obama said.

Peter Saundry, executive director of NCSE, introduced McCarthy by noting Obama’s pledge to act unilaterally on climate change.

“President Obama has announced that he will work with Congress whenever he can but will not be held hostage – will move forward and do the utmost, we hope, through executive authority and through the agencies,” Saundry said. The Supreme Court has noted that EPA has authority under (the) Clean Air Act and also other authorities, under (the) Clean Water Act, and so EPA is marching forward and taking actions right now which is really, really important.”

The conference described its mission in the program this way: “The 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment: Building Climate Solutions will engage some 1,000 key individuals from any fields of sciences and engineering, government and policy, business and civil society to advance solutions to minimize the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/epa-administrator-scientists-speak-truth-climate-change-meet-obamas-needs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.

[Spendulus]

....
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.

Obviously he needs six or seven terms of office to complete his agenda.

[Wilikon]

....
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.

Obviously he needs six or seven terms of office to complete his agenda.

Enough time to have his face on Mt. Rushmore...

[Spendulus]

....
Obama has said he will use executive authority to move forward his agenda, including climate change......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: Get in touch with your inner Lysenkoism to help obama's agenda.

Obviously he needs six or seven terms of office to complete his agenda.

Enough time to have his face on Mt. Rushmore...

Now you're talking a hundred billion dollar project.  It'd have to be a bigger head than all the others combined.

And there'd have to be 24/7 guards on duty to keep the private drones from sticking the big ears on the monstrosity.